Recently, Christian Rap artist Lecrae shared an interview link on Threads featuring a self-identified gay Christian, sparking intense discussion in the comments. This discourse prompted the creation of this article. Important to the discourse is the fact that In 2016, Lecrae’s tweet about his ancestors’ July 4th experiences faced significant backlash from white conservatives who criticized his emphasis on Black identity. This incident became a catalyst for Lecrae to address racial issues in America. The controversy led to broader conversations about race and Christianity, facilitated by his celebrity status, initiating crucial dialogues that might not have occurred otherwise.
This moment in 2016 was appreciated for its potential to foster important conversations.
However, Lecrae’s recent post addressing queerness has troubled many Black queer Christians who previously supported him during attacks from white evangelicals. Particularly concerning are statements like “I have gay friends, so proximity is not an issue” in response to queer Christians’ critiques of one-sided conversations, especially within the Black community.
This situation exemplifies the need for the ongoing work of unleavening and of challenging ingrained beliefs and biases. My critique of Lecrae and similar figures is not intended to contribute to the harmful phenomenon of cancel culture. I advocate for accountability rather than ostracism or cancellation. Instead, this critique aims to highlight a critical issue within theological discourse and broader societal structures where whiteness often serves as an unexamined lens through which truth about God, sin, self, and reality is filtered.
Unacknowledged Assumptions & Defining Deconstruction
The video’s title, “Can You Be LGBTQ+ Christian?”, presents an intriguing question. However, the accompanying advertisement, which mentions a conversation with a “former” gay man, introduces a layer of ambiguity. This inconsistency in messaging becomes apparent only upon viewing the video, where the intended meanings behind the title and terminology are elucidated. While physical proximity between Lecrae and queer individuals may not be problematic, epistemological differences certainly are. To engage in meaningful dialogue, we must establish a shared understanding of terms. Recent critiques of progressive Christianity and deconstruction have been attempted, but confusion arises when we fail to clearly define our terminology.
Consider the term “deconstruction” itself. Misapplying this concept to theology rather than epistemology risks miscommunication and deviation from its original intent. Derrida’s deconstruction involves examining the foundational structures of thought, not merely critiquing religious beliefs. It is an internal process within texts and thought systems, not an external critique. Both progressive and conservative theological contexts often misuse “deconstruction” to mean a critical reevaluation of religious doctrines. While this can be part of the process, it is neither the point nor the correct arena for deconstruction. This narrow interpretation diverges from Derrida’s aim of challenging the underlying assumptions and binary oppositions structuring all forms of knowledge, including religious thought.
To facilitate meaningful dialogue, we must align our understanding of terms. In discussing Christianity, it’s crucial to recognize that what is often presented as “Christian” is shaped by a specific epistemological framework. This framework dictates how knowledge is constructed and interpreted within the tradition. Hence, we must examine whiteness, as it is foundational to American epistemology, whether we acknowledge it or not. By recognizing this, we can better critique and understand the complexities of theological discourse, ensuring that we address the same concepts and avoid confusion. True Derridean deconstruction requires us to question and analyze the epistemological foundations supporting our understanding of Christianity, rather than merely deconstructing its theological tenets. This approach helps uncover deeper assumptions and power dynamics, leading to a more profound and transformative engagement with religious debates around beliefs and practices. What remains unexamined or unstated explicitly in the video’s title, caption, or transcript are the epistemological frameworks underpinning beliefs about God, sin, self, binaries, and homosexuality.
Unhelpful Binaries – Who is Them/Us?
Western Christianity, particularly Protestant Christian epistemology, often exhibits an “us-versus-them” mentality. In my book “Faith Unleavened: The Wilderness Between Trayvon Martin & George Floyd,” I address the prioritization of certain perspectives that create an illusion of consensus regarding Jesus’s identity, the significance of his life and death, which writings and gospels should be included or excluded, and what constitutes orthodoxy. Many, if not all, of these decisions were influenced by state power and its collaboration with military and ecclesiastical authorities to enforce these choices and promote simplified, homogeneous interpretations. These simplifications render Christianity akin to a twin-sized sheet on a king-sized mattress for anyone who honestly examines their beliefs or possesses an identity that diverges from the status quo.
The predominant positioning in Western Christianity often assumes an inherent correctness and objectivity, which can be profoundly problematic. When the experiences, worldviews, and perspectives of white, heterosexual, cisgender, land-owning men are positioned as authoritative and normative, they shape theological and ideological frameworks in ways that inherently marginalize and otherize individuals who do not conform to these narrow parameters. This unexamined centrality of whiteness not only distorts theological discourse but also impedes the self-actualization and thriving of individuals outside this demographic by linking their livelihood to the maintenance of the status quo. Consequently, truth-telling becomes arduous, and effecting change becomes even more challenging.
Lecrae’s actions exemplify the pervasive influence of whiteness in Christian spaces. Despite utilizing his platform to address marginalization in one area, he has failed to do so adequately in another, particularly concerning queer identity. His actions are indicative of the leaven of whiteness, which positions itself against nuance and intersectionality rather than embracing them.
The Interview: Can You Be LGBTQ & Christian?
In the interview, Richard Matthews, a Christian who identifies as a formerly gay man, shares his journey of faith and sexuality. He explains that his pursuit of Jesus was not motivated by a desire to change his sexual orientation. Matthews discusses his struggles with shame and condemnation due to same-sex attractions and how he found healing through his relationship with God. The interview concludes with Matthews emphasizing the importance of love, acceptance, and understanding within the church community, encouraging a focus on internal heart change rather than external appearances. While the interview is not overtly hateful, it is crucial to identify the epistemological framework and how it is rooted in othering and anti-blackness.
Matthews’ discussion of needing Jesus’ blood to cover our hearts and the necessity for internal identity shifts provides insight into the unnamed epistemological frameworks being presented as Christian. Identifying these presuppositions about the nature of sin and self would offer valuable context for their conversation and for the pathologizing of queerness through belief in inherent wickedness. This harmful theology is shaped by and influenced by whiteness. The real issue lies in othering as a function of whiteness and empire, with the most detrimental form being self-othering. The process of deconstruction reveals that this dissociative and disembodied epistemology often results in self-hatred, stemming from homogeneous, unchallenged notions of original sin and depravity.
Western Theological Constructs of Purity, Sin, and Depravity
Augustine of Hippo (354-430 CE) developed the contemporary doctrine of original sin, positing that all humans inherit sin from Adam and Eve’s disobedience in Eden. Augustine’s interpretation of original sin as a hereditary defect has profound implications for human identity and morality. While Augustine primarily focused on sin and grace, his writings also reflect a certain disdain for Jews, whom he viewed as obstinate in their rejection of Christ. Augustine’s “Contra Faustum” includes arguments against Jewish interpretations of Scripture, portraying Jews as spiritually blind and stubborn. This rhetoric contributes to the perception of Jews as impure and spiritually deficient, reinforcing their othering within Christian society. John Calvin (1509-1564) expanded on Augustine’s teachings with his doctrine of total depravity, asserting that sin taints every aspect of human nature, rendering humanity entirely dependent on God’s grace for salvation. This doctrine intensified othering by categorizing individuals based on their moral and spiritual state. Those outside the elect are viewed as inherently flawed and corrupt, without hope. Calvin’s writings also reflect anti-Semitic sentiments, describing Jews as “profane” and “sacrilegious” in his Psalms commentary, portraying them as spiritually dead and morally corrupt, further entrenching their othering within Christian thought. These perspectives embedded an intrinsic form of othering based on unexamined hierarchies and spiritual status into theological discourse. They not only categorized humanity but spiritualized these categories. The paternalistic practice of labeling individuals as inherently sinful and depraved facilitates dehumanization, making it easier to label them as vermin, infidels, or radical left thugs—anything unlike oneself—and justify efforts to Christianize them for purification. This truth must be acknowledged: American Christianity harbors a leaven that justifies categorization and exclusion under the guise of moral and spiritual purity.
Historical examples like the Curse of Ham, Manifest Destiny, and the Doctrine of Discovery (all based on literal Bible interpretations) demonstrate how truth and reality perception and classification are influenced by those with the power to enforce, uphold, and punish dissent. We must critically examine the logical and theoretical foundations of salvation, purity, damnation, and impurity—if only because Jesus died as a Jew, not a Christian. Protestant colonizers failed to address this, evident in their treatment of Black people, Indigenous Natives, and practitioners of other religions as impure outsiders threatening Christian sanctity and purity, requiring conversion.
The pursuit of a singular, authoritative interpretation of Christian teachings applicable universally is more colonial than biblical. Failing to question this approach may lead to self-destruction and damaged relationships in an attempt to safeguard a mythical sanctity. Scripture does not suppress diverse theological views in favor of a unified doctrine; rather, this homogenization was imposed to support religious and political unity goals. For instance, the Council of Chalcedon in 451 CE established a specific Christological doctrine as orthodox, leading to the marginalization of alternative views, such as those held by Coptic and Nestorian churches. Similarly, the Reformation and Counter-Reformation periods witnessed the suppression of various dissenting theological movements challenging dominant doctrinal interpretations. Consequently, alternative perspectives not conforming to this universal vision are often sidelined. The notion of a pure, unadulterated gospel is a myth reinforcing homogeneity and a false sense of purity—a purity that, according to Drs. Billie and Paul Hoard must be protected.
They write:
The flipside of purity or sanctity is the emotion of disgust. Disgust is primarily concerned with boundaries, with what is acceptable and can be allowed into the body, to become a part of us. It helps us differentiate what is vile from what we can consume. It is the emotion that helps us experience what is pure and what isn’t. Disgust is related to but very different from fear. Fear can be rationalized, whereas disgust is visceral. Disgust doesn’t respond to reason…Since the Enlightenment, group identity in Western cultures—and not just conservative Christians—has been closely associated with right belief. Within evangelicalism, ideas are annexed into the realm of disgust as they become the flags of group identity in the evangelical subculture, helping evangelicals to sort the world into different categories. Sinful thoughts, ungodly ideas, and impure motives are all, in that way, first-class tickets out of the culture or group. As the pastor Rob Bell experienced after publishing his now infamous book Love Wins, asking the wrong questions and entertaining the wrong thoughts cannot be tolerated. Instead, ideas that fall outside the purity boundaries must be silenced and opposed with force, as many people of color and other marginalized groups have experienced. In this way, certain ideas, like eternal hell, American exceptionalism, and attitudes toward sexual orientation and gender identity, become litmus tests for gauging a person’s membership in and commitment to the church or faith community because certain beliefs are a threat to the social order and the self of the group. As individuals realize that holding certain views will result in their expulsion through the disgust mechanism, the church community often becomes the least safe place for authentic engagement.
While not focusing too heavily on eucontamination, it must be noted that the experiences of queer Black people in Protestant churches, whether predominantly white or Black, is a palpable experience of “standard disgust reactions” as people unconsciously seek to avoid contamination. For many, there are constant visceral reminders of the ways purity and its partner, disgust, reign as powerful enforcers of the moral and social boundaries of the modern, predominantly white, North American, evangelical epistemological frameworks. These frameworks help protect a strict delineation between the in-group and out-crowd, daring anyone to switch sides and differentiating between us (that is special/chosen/saved/cleansed) and them (which is other/depraved/lost/bound in sin). This could explain why Lecrae and similar influencers insist on platforming one-sided stories, as noted by user @charlotteirene8 in her response to Lecrae on Threads.
Some of these influencers even label those deviating from social and theological “norms” as “demonic”. For them, this effort aims to preserve the gospel’s, God’s, and the community’s purity. Anyone deviating from this norm can subtly or overtly influence (contaminate) the values, priorities, and truths propagated in these spaces.
However, when one examines and deconstructs the epistemological frameworks, it becomes clear, that we are not dealing with discernment — we are dealing with disgust. And that changes the conversation significantly. We cannot adequately address queerness and Christianity until we address disgust and whiteness.
It must also be said that Black churches that reject Black queer Christians are not excluded in this regard. For in not addressing their own disgust, they engage in the same mechanisms of othering perpetuated by whiteness, which their very institutions historically resisted. This exclusion not only mirrors the oppressive practices they opposed but also fractures and fragments the collective identity of a community that has traditionally sought refuge and established deep roots within these religious spaces.
Trusting Lecrae as a social and spiritual critic becomes problematic when he claims his Black identity as a foundation for his own social critique yet platforms theological perspectives that exclude Black queer-affirming Christians. By failing to be inclusive of people who reject depravity as a starting point for identity negotiation but still claim Christianity, he engages in a selectiveness and homogeneity that stems from the othering mechanisms of whiteness, rather than from scripture. This approach mirrors the exclusionary practices historically opposed by Black churches and perpetuates divisions within the community.
The Leaven of Whiteness
Whiteness functions as a pervasive, unexamined standard within theological discourse, fostering oppressive ideologies, biased sampling, and one-sided dialogues. It permeates broader societal structures, utilizing scripture as a veil for our aversions and complacency. This is critically important because whiteness serves as a toxic interpretive lens for negotiating purity and impurity, existing in opposition to Blackness. The default positioning and supremacy of whiteness conflates the experiences of white, heterosexual, cisgender, property-owning males with “correctness” and “objectivity,” establishing a benchmark against which all else is measured. It reinforces adherence to this myth and penalizes attempts to expose it.
Commencing with a self-perception of inherent depravity deprives us of the necessary tools to construct an identity outside of the supremacy of whiteness or to scrutinize purportedly absolute and exclusive truths that have been leavened by it. This unexamined “truth” is then weaponized, labeling the unfamiliar and different as impure (repulsive). If the sources and nature of this aversion remain unexamined these well-meaning-none-the-wiser Christian influencers will continue to cause harm in unnecessary ways.
These paradigms must be challenged and altered. It is imperative to expose these biases and critically analyze how they shape our understanding of the divine, ethics, self, and society. By decentering whiteness and embracing a diversity of voices and experiences, including those of queer Black individuals, theological discourse can evolve into a tool for emancipation and inclusivity, rather than oppression and exclusion.
Final Thoughts
A common misunderstanding about the rest of us is assuming our goal in moving away from certain Christian doctrines is to alter anyone else’s faith, relationships, or beliefs. When we depart from toxic Christianity or rigid ideas about sin and identity, it’s not about taking anything away from others. Those ideas simply don’t work for us.
Unleavened Christian tradition values examining life experiences to determine if certain beliefs help us thrive and connect with others. The scriptures themselves advocate this—written by Jews who valued diverse perspectives and critical dialogue. Unfortunately, early Christian theologians lost this respect for diversity long before translating the Bible into English.
What they get wrong about the rest of us is that we have anything to prove. Most of us have moved beyond apologetics and paternalism. We’re not trying to tear down or ridicule Christianity with some hidden agenda. We’ve simply found the same promises of abundant life, freedom from guilt, and intimacy with God by following Jesus beyond the gates erected in His name. When we critique, it’s not Christianity itself or even the well-meaning Christians who peddled unexamined frameworks, but the myths and misconceptions that distort it and the misuse of God and the Bible as a weapon to harm others.
We must ask the right questions, name our vantage points first so that we can ensure that we are having the same conversations.
Editor’s Note: This article was first published with a complete bibliography, on Tamice Spencer-Helms’ website. There, you can also find more information on the work of Rev. Spencer Helms and their book, “Faith Unleavened: The Wilderness Between Trayvon Martin & George Floyd.”
Founder of Sub:Culture Inc., designed to holistically support black students and to provide essential crisis relief.
